Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



Keystone XL: The Real Impact

Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

TransCanada's (NYSE: TRP  ) Keystone XL pipeline debate has captured the nation's attention primarily because of the political ruckus it's caused on both sides of the aisle. Republicans say that President Obama is denying the U.S. thousands of jobs, and Obama says he's concerned about the environmental impact and won't have the pipeline crammed through the regulatory process. Depending on how far you lean politically, most people have blindly believed their side of the story.

But like any debate, there's a bigger picture involved that affects both sides.

The oil is coming from somewhere
The Keystone XL pipeline would provide about 830,000 barrels of Canadian oil per day to the U.S. Gulf Coast. What happens after that is a big question.

If the oil is then shipped off to some other country, as is likely the case, then the long-term impact on jobs and prices gets complicated, but I'll get to that in a minute. If the oil stays in the U.S., we may be able to reduce reliance on other countries for oil, a good thing for almost everyone. Almost.

This scenario throws that whole "job creation" debate off kilter. TransCanada estimates that the project will create between 2,500 and 4,650 jobs, not somewhere around 25,000 as the media has reported. The indirect impact is up for great debate, but since most of the materials won't be sourced from the U.S. and construction moves quickly through rural communities, it won't be 119,000 person years, as the Perrymann study commissioned by TransCanada suggests.

What's being lost in the shuffle is the amount of jobs that could be destroyed if Keystone XL's oil stayed in the United States. Based on Overseas Shipholding Group's (NYSE: OSG  ) capacity and employment data, I calculated that 2,515 permanent shipping jobs could be displaced by the pipeline if we displaced Middle East oil. Add in the permanent jobs that a pipeline creates, and the long-term picture gets murky. The State Department says 20 permanent jobs will be created, and it's "a few hundred" if you believe TransCanada.

If the U.S. keeps the oil, the shipping industry could lose more jobs than the project creates in just a few years. The pipeline doesn't seem to be quite the long-term job creator that some would like to think.

A study by the Cornell University Global Labor Institute found that there could be four other job killers in Keystone XL. Higher fuel prices in 15 states, environmental damage, costs related to air pollution and carbon emissions, and a negative impact on "green" jobs were cited as having a potentially negative impact on jobs as well. Like indirect job calculations, these claims are soft at best, but they're worth keeping in mind.

What if the oil doesn't stay here?
The truth is, there's now a wider understanding that Keystone XL is actually being built to divert oil from Midwestern refineries, where oil is relatively cheap, to the Gulf, where it's more expensive. This would benefit Canada, which would profit from the higher prices.

Cornell's study concludes that this diversion away from Midwest refineries could raise gas prices in the Midwest by $0.20 per gallon, and Bloomberg has reported similar numbers. So the same states that would have a few thousand incremental jobs created over the next few years to build Keystone XL would end up paying for those jobs at the pump.

Of course, importing crude and exporting refined product isn't a bad thing for the U.S. and would probably help North American production overall. But this is rarely a topic of discussion in the fuss over Keystone XL.

Environmentalists don't have it right, either
I'll admit that I hug a tree from time to time, but the environmental impact of the Keystone XL pipeline isn't that much more than any other oil source.

You could argue that oil from oil sands is more energy-intensive to refine, but it could be replacing oil that's shipped from the Middle East, saving the fuel burned to make the round-the-world trip. TransCanada will probably soon release a new path through Nebraska, and if it avoids the aquifer there, I see little difference between Keystone XL and the thousands of miles of pipeline that criss-cross the country.

The impact on investments
I originally thought the big losers from Keystone XL would be oil shippers. But if most of the refined product from Keystone XL is exported, Frontline (NYSE: FRO  ) , Nordic American Tankers (NYSE: NAT  ) , and Overseas Shipholding could see increased overall demand if trips from other countries aren't reduced.

This could also be a positive for companies drilling in the Bakken shale. Kodiak Oil & Gas (NYSE: KOG  ) , Statoil, Continental Resources, and many others are realizing lower revenues because of an oversupply of oil in the Midwest, but Keystone XL could help alleviate that and raise prices. That's bad for consumers but good for these stocks.

A Foolish prediction
I still think that Keystone XL will be approved eventually. Few realize that the route wasn't even set in stone when Obama denied it the first time, and there's too much political pressure to deny a complete application. No matter how small, the impact will really be on jobs.

One of the reasons Keystone XL is such a hot-button topic is high oil prices. Well, we have a free report that highlights three great stocks that will profit from oil over $100. Get free access.

Fool contributor Travis Hoium has no position in any company mentioned. You can follow Travis on Twitter at @FlushDrawFool, check out his personal stock holdings, or follow his CAPS picks at TMFFlushDraw.

Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Statoil A and TransCanada. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days.

Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (8)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 28, 2012, at 2:07 AM, fishersta wrote:

    Economics 101: In the long run the economy as a whole benefits whenever transportation infrastructure is constructed that enables a raw material/feedstock (crude oil) to be moved less expensively to the point where it is consumed in a manufacturing process (refinery). Trying to pick winners and losers, to count jobs lost here, gained there, etc., smacks of the inherently inefficient central planning process. Let the market, unimpeded by regulatory constraint whenever feasible, decide the most efficient use of natural resources.

    (If we ordered all domestic producing oil wells to be shut in we could create a boatload of new shipping jobs!)

    Finally, be more precise with your terms - for a variety of reasons, "oil" would not be shipped off to other countries...though refined products, as you state later, might be.

  • Report this Comment On March 28, 2012, at 11:36 AM, DividendsBoom wrote:

    Also, Canada has the right to seek the best price. If it doesn't get it in the Midwest, it will seek new opportunities. The best opportunity is this pipeline, next I guess would be investing in the infrastructure to ship it to Asia.

  • Report this Comment On March 28, 2012, at 12:38 PM, CluckChicken wrote:

    "Also, Canada has the right to seek the best price."

    I agree but the question is why if this is most likely going to hurt me should I build the pipeline? Right now the oil from Canada really has nowhere to go but the midwest via pipeline, so the number of buyers is very limited. If there is a pipeline that allows the oil to reach the seas then the number of buys increase and basically wipping out any discount the midwest gets for being the only real buyer.

    The one thing stories about this pipeline's potential all have in common is that it will mean a great profit for the Canadian groups involved. So I ask why do they need help from the US, why not build the line to Vancouver?

  • Report this Comment On March 29, 2012, at 8:22 AM, oxboro wrote:

    If the pipeline takes most of the oil from Canada and some from the US is better then sending the money to the middle east. At least the money will stay in North America. Many of the Canadian dollars are reinvested in vacation spots in the US. Not many dollars are reinvested in the US from the middle east. Displacing a job with many barrels of oil is a huge win economically as the product stays in the US.

  • Report this Comment On March 29, 2012, at 2:56 PM, florianSchach wrote:

    the Keystone pipeline could actually still have a number of benefits for a lot of people. We need to come away from this notion of which politicians it will help and how we’re supporting big oil. The real truth is, is that business is what helps our economy to grow and prosper. ( So to accuse people of making money off projects is not the best argument to put forth. Projects like these though they are infrastructure projects are also privately funded so the number of jobs it can create is more not less, and can also have future possibilities for the employees who are working on this project to work on ones that may come later (maybe such as other cleaner energy projects that we will need). The Keystone Pipeline can provide other possibilities, we need to focus on what the future benefits are rather than only focus on the here and now.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1847184, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/21/2016 6:08:31 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,145.71 -16.64 -0.09%
S&P 500 2,141.16 -0.18 -0.01%
NASD 5,257.40 15.57 0.30%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/21/2016 4:03 PM
FRO $7.71 Down -0.15 -1.91%
Frontline CAPS Rating: **
KOG.DL $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Kodiak Oil and Gas CAPS Rating: *****
NAT $9.75 Down -0.02 -0.20%
Nordic American Ta… CAPS Rating: ***
OSG $9.80 Down -0.09 -0.91%
Overseas Shipholdi… CAPS Rating: *
TRP $47.16 Up +0.03 +0.06%
TransCanada CAPS Rating: *****